MEEA_2010_Midwest Energy Codes Needs Analysis Report

|
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
 8 views
of 19

Please download to get full document.

View again

Description
Prepared for Battelle Memorial Institute Pacific Northwest Division Prepared by Isaac R. Elnecave; Senior Policy Manager Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 2 Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................3 2. Regional Needs ........................................................................................................................................
Share
Tags
Transcript
       Prepared for Battelle Memorial InstitutePacific Northwest Division Prepared by Isaac R. Elnecave; Senior Policy ManagerMidwest Energy Efficiency Alliance    2Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611 Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................32. Regional Needs .......................................................................................................................................................42.1. Lack of Resources ............................................................................................................................................42.2. Increasing Complexity of the Energy Code ......................................................................................................42.3 Prioritization of Energy Codes: .........................................................................................................................43. State Needs.............................................................................................................................................................53.1 Illinois ................................................................................................................................................................53.2 Indiana ..............................................................................................................................................................63.3 Iowa ..................................................................................................................................................................73.4 Kansas ...............................................................................................................................................................93.5 Michigan ........................................................................................................................................................ 103.6 Minnesota ...................................................................................................................................................... 113.7 Missouri ......................................................................................................................................................... 123.8 Nebraska ........................................................................................................................................................ 133.9 North Dakota ................................................................................................................................................. 143.10 Ohio ............................................................................................................................................................. 153.11 South Dakota ............................................................................................................................................... 163.12 Wisconsin..................................................................................................................................................... 17Appendix 1: Enabling Statutes/Relevant Regulations ............................................................................................. 19       3Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611 1. Introduction MEEA is pleased to submit the following needs analysis on behalf of Midwest states.  Part of the deliverables forGrant No. 135069 includes the submittal of a needs analysis to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory thataims to identify state specific needs with respect to code adoption, implementation, enforcement andcompliance to help PNNL better target assistance and resources.In terms of energy code adoption and development, the Midwest is in a unique position.  First, it contains a hugedisparity in terms of code adoption, implementation and enforcement.  The region contains some of the mostadvanced states in the country (Minnesota and Wisconsin), states that have begun serious efforts (Illinois,Indiana and Michigan) and states that have not even adopted a state energy code.  Consequently, the needswithin states will vary and any analysis should take that into account.This paper will describe needs on two levels:1.   Regional needs.2.   Individual State NeedsFor the regional analysis, this paper will briefly look at:    Specific region wide issues that should be addressed.    The needs related to those issues.For the individual state needs section, the paper will give:    Brief overview of state status including statutory requirements, current code, status of codeenforcement activities.    Describe state specific barriers to code adoption, implementation and compliance.    Detail state needs based on discussions with key stakeholders and general understanding of the state.    Recommendations that can address the needs.      4Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 645 N. Michigan Ave. 990, Chicago, IL 60611 2. Regional Needs Before entering a discussion of specific state needs, Section 2 will briefly go over problems and needs thatextend across the region.  These three items act in a complementary manner to frustrate progress on energycodes.  Within this environment, energy codes get progressively less attention which inevitably results in anunderperforming building. 2.1. Lack of Resources Jurisdictions at every level, state, county and municipal, suffer from a lack of funds.  Typically, local jurisdictionsare funded through building fees, state funds or a combination of both.  Without exception, over the last fewyears, funds directed toward building energy code enforcement have decreased.  Much of this is due todecreasing building activity but it also arises from decreasing contributions from the state (which inevitably hasits own budgetary problems). Due to lack of resources, local and state code officials are increasingly unable tofully discharge their duties resulting in underperforming energy codes. Need:  Development of a steady funding source for local and state code offices. 2.2. Increasing Complexity of the Energy Code Over the last few code cycles, as the energy code has become more energy efficient, it has also become morecomplex.  Because of this emerging complexity, building practitioners must spend more time and effort inlearning the code, moreover, more time has to be devoted to meeting its requirements (both from the point of view of the practitioner and the building official). This compounds the first issue.  First, practitioners arereceiving lower fees for design and construction; second, building officials have less time than they had beforeto review and inspect buildings. Need:  Development of multiple levels/pathways of training materials.  Sufficient funding of trainingthat can reach all affected stakeholders.  Reducing the cost and barriers to effectively trainingpractitioners. 2.3 Prioritization of Energy Codes: Both practitioners and building officials, because of legal issues, tradition and general concern for welfare,prioritize health and safety over energy.  This prioritization goes on top of the first issue.  Building practitionersand officials have less and less time and with the prioritization of health and safety, it is most likely that energycodes will have disproportionately less time devoted to them. Need:  Education program for building practitioners that emphasizes the direct and indirect benefitsof the energy code.
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks